This study examined the instructional context, pedagogical techniques, interpersonal dynamics, and personal characteristics of a teacher and her collegiate students in a renowned private violin studio. Through lesson observations, interviews, and analysis of artifacts, the following themes emerged: (1) a nurturing, non-judgmental environment, characterized by “neutral” teacher feedback; (2) clearly defined learning expectations, lesson structure, and work habits that are mutually understood by student and teacher; (3) a clear emphasis on learning to practice effectively in the student’s own time, including “practicing practicing” within the lesson; and (4) explicit instruction on how to teach others. Analysis of the data suggests that this studio might be best understood through Bruner’s conception of a spiral curriculum, as the structure and content of all student lessons were virtually the same regardless of student level, but the complexity of the tasks increases greatly as students progress.
BathgateM.Sims-KnightJ.SchunnC. (2011). Thoughts on thinking: Engaging novice music students in metacognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 403–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1842
2.
BentonC. (2014). Thinking about thinking: Metacognition for music learning. Rowman & Littlefield.
3.
BlackwellJ. (2020). Expertise in applied studio teaching: Teachers working with multiple levels of learners. International Journal of Music Education, 38(2), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761419898312
4.
BlackwellJ.MikszaP.EvansP.McPhersonG. E. (2020). Student vitality, teacher engagement, and rapport in studio music instruction. Frontiers in Psychology-Performance Science, 11, Article 1007. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01007
5.
BrunerJ. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
6.
BurwellK. (2012). Apprenticeship in music: A contextual study for instrumental teaching and learning. International Journal of Music Education, 31(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411434501
7.
BurwellK.CareyG.BennettD. (2019). Isolation in studio music teaching: The secret garden. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 18(4), 372–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022217736581
8.
CareyG.BridgstockR.TaylorP.McWilliamE.GrantC. (2013). Characterising one-to-one conservatoire teaching: Some implications of a quantitative analysis. Music Education Research, 15(3), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2013.824954
9.
CareyG.GrantC.McWilliamE.TaylorP. (2013). One-to-one pedagogy: Developing a protocol for illuminating the nature of teaching in the conservatoire. International Journal of Music Education, 31(2), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413483077
10.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S.NewmanS. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
ColomboB.AntoniettiA. (2017). The role of metacognitive strategies in learning music: A multiple case study. British Journal of Music Education, 34(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051716000267
12.
ConcinaE. (2019). The role of metacognitive skills in music learning and performing: Theoretical features and educational implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1583. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01583
13.
CreechA. (2012). Interpersonal behaviour in one-to-one instrumental lessons: An observational analysis. British Journal of Music Education, 29, 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171200006X
14.
de BruinL. R. (2019). The use of cognitive apprenticeship in the learning and teaching of improvisation: Teacher and student perspectives. Research Studies in Music Education, 41(3), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1321103X18773110
15.
DennenV. P.BurnerK. J. (2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. In SpectorJ. M.MerrillM. D.van MerriënboerJ.DriscollM. P. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 425–439). Taylor & Francis.
16.
DukeR. A.ChapmanD. (2011). Changing learners: The nature of expertise in music teaching. In Madura Ward-SteinmanP. (Ed.), Advances in social-psychology and music education research (pp. 29–38). Ashgate.
17.
DukeR. A.SimmonsA. L. (2006). The nature of expertise: Narrative descriptions of 19 common elements observed in the lessons of three renowned artist-teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 170, 7–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319345
18.
FinlayL. (2000). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120052
19.
GallM. D.GallJ. P.BorgW. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
20.
GauntH. (2011). Understanding the one-to-one relationship in instrumental/vocal tuition in higher education: Comparing student and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Music Education, 28(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051711000052
21.
GauntH. (2013). Promoting professional and paradigm reflection amongst conservatoire teachers in an international community. In WesterlundH.GauntH. (Eds.), Collaborative learning in higher music education: Why what and how? (pp. 49–61). Taylor & Francis.
22.
GauntH.CreechA.LongM.HallamS. (2012). Supporting conservatoire students towards professional integration: One-to-one tuition and the potential of mentoring. Music Education Research, 14(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2012.657166
23.
GrandyG. (2012). Intrinsic case study. In MillsA. J.DureposG.WiebeE. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 500–501). SAGE.
24.
Hyry-BeihammerE. K. (2010). Master-apprentice relation in music teaching: From a secret garden to a transparent modeling. Nordic Research in Music Education, 12, 161–178.
25.
JacobsonD.MustafaN. (2019). Social identity map: A reflexivity tool for practicing explicit positionality in critical qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919870075
McCormickJ.McPhersonG. E. (2003). The role of self-efficacy in a musical performance examination: An exploratory structural equation analysis. Psychology of Music, 31(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735603031001322
28.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.
29.
MilesM. M.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
30.
NielsenS. G. (2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal individual practice: A study of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32(4), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735604046099
31.
ParkesK. A.WexlerM. (2012). The nature of applied music teaching expertise: Common elements observed in the lessons of three applied teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 193, 45–62. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.193.0045
PeshkinA. (1994). The presence of self: Subjectivity in the conduct of qualitative research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 122, 45–56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40318654
34.
PowerA. M.PowellS. J. (2018). Engaging young string players in metacognition. International Journal of Music Education, 36(4), 659–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761418771989
35.
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). NVivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 12).
36.
SchmidtM. (2014). Collecting and analyzing observation of music teaching and learning data. In ConwayC. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research in American music education (pp. 227–249). Oxford University Press.
37.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.
38.
StronachI.GarrattD.PearceC.PiperH. (2007). Reflexivity, the picturing of selves, the forging of method. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(2), 179–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406295476
39.
TaberK. S. (2014). Methodological issues in science education research: A perspective from the philosophy of science. In MatthewsM. R. (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 1839–1893). Springer.
